More Violence in Syria, Networks Still Refuse to Mention Clinton 'Reformer' Gaffe
As Syrian President Bashar al-Assad defiantly refused to implement democratic reforms and his security forces fired on protesters on Wednesday, the networks continued to ignore Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's Sunday comments labeling the dictator as a "reformer."
On Wednesday's CBS Evening News fill-in anchor Erica Hill read a news brief on the latest crackdown by the Syrian government: "There's more turmoil in Syria today after a hard-line speech by President Bashar al-Assad. Instead of announcing reforms, as expected, Assad blamed recent protests on a foreign conspiracy....In the port city of Latakia, witnesses say Syrian troops opened fire during an anti-government protest." Despite Clinton having made her gaffe on CBS's Face the Nation, Hill did not mention it.
The NBC Nightly News actually did a full story on Syria, with correspondent Ron Allen explaining: "For days the Syrian government had crushed protests with brute force. Dozens are believed dead. Today many expected al-Assad to bend, but he took a very hard line and blamed the unrest on outside conspirators....Today the president said announcing reforms under pressure would be a sign of weakness. The same iron hand that kept his father in power for 30 years before him." Again, no mention of Clinton's comments were included in the report.
ABC's World News on Wednesday did not cover the newest round of violence and the Thursday network morning shows all avoided the topic.
— Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here.
- Kyle Drennen's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
How can there be a question anymore?
Submitted by Ashrak on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:03pm.
That Big Media is powned lock stock and barrel by government?
Confused... Please Advise.
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:28pm.
Are we now supposed to be grateful to 2 of the (former) Big 3 for mentioning Syria at all?
Just wondering.
Thoughts on War
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:35pm.
They who beat the drums of war and sow discontent upon the souls of men are seldom men of principal but of politic. They who send schoolboys to fight in foreign lands and then grandstand upon their accomplishments are worse than tyrants, they are cowards. Should this administration declare a war everywhere there is an uprising? Should we send brave men to die for causes unknown? Syria is very well an oppressive regime, but what business is that of ours? It is very easy to start a war, but Mrs. Clinton realizes that it is even harder to avoid the spilling of blood. I commend her for her diplomacy, and not theatrics that rouse rabble to clang swords together.
Our troops are not "school boys"
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:37pm.
Disgusting that you should refer to them as such.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It's disgusting that you do
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:40pm.
It's disgusting that you do not consider an 18 year old a schoolboy...
Henry Clay, for your
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:02pm.
Henry Clay, for your information, Blonde is correct. There are NO school boys in the military. None. Those are grown men, ready, willing and able to do what you cannot and were never willing to do.
Those are not school boys you see, blind man. There go the vicious Dogs of War. Men of the Warrior class. Men, whose boots you are not worthy to clean.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Bass...
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:16pm.
Then explain to me why is it that men and women are allowed to continue their education while still serving in the military. It seems that some here value the lives of strangers in far away provinces more than their neighbor’s sons and daughters. You may call them Dogs of War sir, but I like to refer to them as something far simpler: human beings.
The same reason why people"work through" college.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:30pm.
"Then explain to me why is it that men and women are allowed to continue their education while still serving in the military. "
For the same reason why people are "allowed" to attend college while working in the civilian sector, to expand their education.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Henry, not only do the men
Submitted by bassndude on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:29pm.
Henry, not only do the men and women continue their education while in the military, but so do many seniors after they retire. Would you also call them "school boys"? Simply because they go to school? I think not. Else you may wind up with a knot or two.
You do not see them as warriors because you cannot understand their view. You cannot understand their passion. You cannot understand the valor required to step forward, when others cower.
While I detest the action in Libya, I also detest those cowards who stayed behind with wet pants. I have never respected those who remained behind, while others carried their load. And they have always been the ones that whine because others go where they fear to tread.
They are warriors. You don't believe me, you step up to a few of them, call them "school boys", and get in touch with me when you heal up.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
It's customary in the service, Henry
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:53pm.
Company grade officers are expected to have, at a minimum, a college degree. Field grade officers, while on active duty, obtain a masters degree, with an area of study that is pertinent to their MOS (Military Occupational Specialty). Some, such as David Petraeus, go on to earn PhD's. Senior NCO's also attend college, usually earning at least a bachelors degree, if not a masters.
Our government expects professional war fighters, and invests both the time and money to ensure that that is what we have.
In case you forget, our military is all volunteer. We are not conscripting the unwilling. A career in the military, or even a one term enlistment, is at the choice of the service member.
Your over weening and condescending post exposes your ignorance, Henry.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I joined at 24.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:31pm.
I entered military service at the age of 24, 8 years AFTER I dropped out of highschool. What did that make me, a schoolman?
Not everyone who volunteers for military service is a teenager, you know. You shouldn't generalize like that.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yep
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:53pm.
I was 21 when I got off the bus on PI.
Paris Island?
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:26pm.
You attend basic training at Paris Island? Man, are you a glutton for punishment!
It was Fort Jackson, Tank Hill, for me.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Oh yeah Cobra
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:56pm.
MCRD Parris Island, SC.
How about those snakes, eh?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 04/01/2011 - 12:55am.
How many poisonous snakes did you find in the fox holes at the range? That was always the highlight of my day! Never mind the ones we had to run over during PT. What is it with snakes and South Carolina, anyways? I think Saint Patrick chased them out of Ireland alright, and straight into S.C.!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
To follow up on Blonde's note
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:52pm.
"They who send schoolboys to fight..." vs. "Should we send brave men..."
Which is it, schoolboys or brave men?
------------------------------------------------
But beyond that, it seems to me that what this administration is doing vis a vis Syria is condemning anyone rising up against Assad to whatever Assad has in store for them. We've taken a pass on Syria- Clinton said that there is no condition under which we'd intervene, validating it by saying that he's a reformer.
I agree that we should not intervene militarily -I don't think we should have in Libya either- though I don't think I'd show my hand before all the cards are dealt. This administration is so scared of the anti-war left that they'll say anything necessary to appease them, even while initiating a time-limited, scope-limited kinetic military action on behalf of less than a thousand rebels in Libya. Coherence is not a strong suit of the Obama/Clinton foreign policy.
BKeyser,
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:30pm.
On your first question sir, war often times turns boys into men. I find that it is far preferable to let nature take her course in the human maturity process, and resist artificial means such as war. To your second point, a very thoughtful point you do have. I would respectfully disagree with the idea that this administration has taken a pass on Syria. Should we say something that would inflame this brutal regime even more and lead to a propaganda victory for the Syrian Government? Or should we leave well enough alone and let the Syrian people fight for their Independence like every other country in the course of history had to do before America became a hegemonic power?
"War" is a natural process
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:22pm.
War, aggressive conflict, IS a natural process. Theses type of actions are found throughout nature, whether it is an ant colony invading another and killing off the competition or male Antelopes fighting each other for breeding "rights." Why should the "human maturity process" be any different than any other natural process?
The "human maturity process" will always include conflict, even violent, deadly conflict. That's the very nature of life itself. The struggle, of course, is to minimize the damage of that conflict, and that is what military service teaches us best, how to resolve violent conflict in ways that minimizes death and destruction.
As I was taught in basic training: it is far more desirable to injure an opponent as opposed to killing them. Injuring them will force others to provided medical assistance to them, thus reducing the threat itself by reducing the number of actual combatants, while killing them will only embolden others to strike even harder in revenge.
You see, the "Art" of war, the "art" of conflict resolution, comes not in killing or destroying your opponent, but, instead in removing their ability to strike aggressively. If you can eliminate the opponent's means of striking aggressively without killing or injuring a single person, then you have mastered that art successfully. The conflict will then resolve itself, through pure necessity as the people actually struggling will lose the need which caused that conflict because they know that this unfulfilled need, the source of the conflict, can never be resolved successfully so they would much rather do ANYTHING else that remain in a quandary of unresolved need. (Human's, by nature, HATE quandaries. We want, we need, resolution in everything, even if that means the resolution itself isn't what we were hoping for) That's a lesson that military service teaches us, a lesson that every single person should learn.
If left to "nature," then that lesson is never learned and people will needlessly be killed or injured due to the very process of "human maturity" itself. This is why, for example, most "bar fights" do not involve current or previous members of the Military, but, instead, involve people who were following your concept of "natural human maturity" processes, like attending college as opposed to serving in the military. The very fact that they used what, to you, is a "natural maturity process," lead to actually increasing aggressive tendencies for conflict resolution as opposed to lessening them because they were never taught otherwise though military training.
Take college as an example. Most people think of college as a "natural" part of achieving maturity and that college itself more desirable than military training as college courses are less aggressive, far more passive, than, say military training. But that belief is completely wrong. College doesn't teach us to be less aggressive. It teaches us to be MORE aggressive, especially in conflict resolution. You don't solve mathematical equations by being passive, do you? No, you have to aggressively work for that resolution. The more aggression you apply, the quicker that resolution will occur. THAT'S what college teaches everyone: Aggression achieves resolution, which is completely opposite of the military concept that SUPPRESSION, specifically the suppression of aggressive actions themselves, achieves resolution. Do you really find that more desirable?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
On the Nature of War
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 6:40pm.
I have a couple key points that I would like to examine a little more in depth. First, comparing humans to an ant colony or other such nonsense is completely ridiculous. Humans have a capacity for reason and logic, whereas ants and elks are merely acting on instincts that are biologically derived. That is why we have governments to peacefully broker resolutions between men; a logical reasonable solution.
Reason and logic are key elements that separate man from beast, and as such war and conflict is a breakdown of logos. For what does it profit a nation now to enter into war? Certainly, history has shown us that wars for empire and land are of no value anymore. The resources used to take over a geographic area far outweigh any benefit that could be obtained through administrating it. Thus trade is always preferable and far more reasonable. What does that have us left with you may ask?
War now is fought on ideology. Which is certainly unreasonable and without logic. I seek to attack Country A because I want Ideology B to be the dominate form in that society. What are the gains, what are the benefits? Now our leaders are skilled orators, they may spin these wars on many buzz words that appeal to passion but not to Reason? Thus, one can conclude war is an artificial process that is not natural in the human world.
Finally, I do not believe University is preferable to military service. I have never said such a thing; people have free will to choose either path or may take a completely different route from both. Life is not a zero sum game; there are many opportunities everywhere if one spends the time to look. I just hate to see a young man or woman die prematurely for transient causes.
Ok, my responces
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:36pm.
"First, comparing humans to an ant colony or other such nonsense is completely ridiculous. "
No, it is not, for we all share a common ancestor , do we not? That means we all share a common basis for our behaviors, correct? You can't separate human behavior from any of its relatives, from other species, for we are all related in the past. The drive for food, shelter, and the like is the same for an ant as it is for a human. Those behaviors remain, unchanged, for billion of years across billions of species for one reason: it works!
Those behaviors, including aggressive behaviors, are written into our very genes, just as they are with every other species on earth. We can no more separate ourselves from those basic, common behaviors than we can separate ourselves our common body structures, like being comprised of cells, cells which contains DNA, most of which is common in EVERY SINGLE FORM OF LIFE ON EARTH. We can't ignore that we all share the same patters of behaviors with other life forms, including the use of "logic" and "reason" in how we, both "man" and "beast," reacted to expected AND unexpected events in the natural world, (how we locate food, for example, or react to a perceived danger. or even decide who shall be our mates), nor can we deny that those behaviors exists within each and every one of us just as it does with all those other species. All we can do is recognize the source of those behaviors and modify them as they occur, and that, in itself, is very difficult, just as it is supposed to be.
Contrary to our deepest desires or beliefs, we are not special, separate from and superior to every other form of life on Earth. That is a false delusion, one that used to shield ourselves from our commonality with all other lifeforms on Earth Not even our social structures are different from other forms of life. For every type social structure you observe in mankind, you've find several other species with that same, exact, social structure, including "governmental" structures. Many, many forms of life have that hierarchical from of social structure. Elephants have this type of social structure. They even have a means of "resolving" conflict with other Elephant societies, what we call "herds," by the use of the "leader' of each herd battling each other for dominance, mostly through posturing and vocalization. Do you thing that's just a coincidence that this is just how humans resolve some of their their social conflicts, conflicts within or between societies?
"That is why we have governments to peacefully broker resolutions between men; a logical reasonable solution."
If this is true, then why do some many wars, armed conflicts, rebellions, and the such , break out between those government s just as they have done throughout human history in every type of human interactions and assemblies imaginable? There must be some fundamental reason, one that exists within our very nature itself that is driving those wars, fueling those conflicts. Government's are not cures for conflict, they are usually a catalyst, just as they have been trough all of human history. The military is how we have learned to control those violent conflicts between government, societies, and individuals in ways that minimizes the damage to everyone involved.
"War now is fought on ideology."
ALL conflict can been shown to be based upon ideology in one way or another, as we can DEFINE, if we wish , all human behavior as an expression of ideology. It doesn't matter if it an armed conflict or not, so that's an invalid argument because it doesn't change the fact that ALL conflict originates with natural human aggressive behavior, and NO government OR ideology will EVER be able to eliminate the aggressive behaviors that initiate conflict, for it is a part of our humanity itself. You may as well eliminate all humans, for that is the only way those behaviors will ever be eliminated. As I said before, we can not eliminate these behaviors, we can only learn how to control them.
Even the natural world is full of examples of what could be defined as "ideological" sources of conflict. Why do wolves, for example, fight amongst themselves over who will be dominant in their particular society when there are plenty of natural resources available to them to exist in peace even without needing ANYONE to be dominant, which is very similar to what HUMANS do in each and every "election?" They must have some type of "ideological" concept of WHO should be in charge and WHY, correct? It's that "why" that creates and defines the concept of "ideology," isn't that true? After all, most subservient wolves will help the dominant one maintain that dominance over the group when facing a challenge. That sounds a LOT like they are applying ideology in their support of who should be dominant, wouldn't you agree? It must be, for that's VERY similar to how humans react to challenges to dominance in our social structures, which you would define as "ideology" correct? What would make that type of behavior based on "ideology" in our case but not in theirs? Is it only because we're Human, and they're not?
"Finally, I do not believe University is preferable to military service. I have never said such a thing;"
No you just said that you preferred "natural maturity processes' over military training and I used the college example to show you that military training is preferable to most, of not all, other "natural maturity processes," including college, which is what most people associate with maturity. The problem, of course, is that you never really defined what "natural maturity processes" even means. But you made it VERY clear that you don't include military training in the definition of "natural maturity processes." That's a big mistake on your part.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
On War, Evolution, and God
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 8:58pm.
I call poppy-cock my fine friend; it seems that we have ourselves in a bit of a stalemate here. I am more of the: God created man in his image, thus we are intrinsically different and we DO NOT have a common ancestor. I find that human inventions as nuanced as trade, extracting resources from the ground, electricity, etc... Can only be found with humans.
Yes, ants live in colonies but they cannot explain why they do so. Only a human with a functioning sound brain that is able to comprehend logic and reason is able to explain the benefits of it. All an ant knows is food is nearby-hardly any reason there.
As for the wolf example, they fight amongst themselves because they do not have a functioning brain that is able to articulate issues any other way. Elections are an intricate system that man came up with to resolve the issue of governance peacefully, without having to resort to violence. That is was separate you and I from a peacock. As for the ideological concept, my point was that ideology is not rational. It makes no sense whatsoever. It is an idea put forth by the elite to rule over the masses. A sort of divide and conquer tactic that would make Machiavelli proud. You see our overlords want to make us into nothing more than animals fighting over table scraps that are thrown into the waste-bin of mediocrity.
Finally, once again I have nothing against the military or military training. I have a problem though with war. Especially, irresponsible fruitless engagements that gain nothing; but lose precious men nobler than I.
Call it whatever you want.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:20pm.
Call it whatever you want. You have your beliefs and that is that. Reveal in your beliefs of human superiority, if that is what you desire. That bacteria that lives in your gut, you know, the ones you couldn't survive without, will show you once and for all who the superior species really is; when it consumes your body after you die.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra, that ain't exactly a happy bedtime story.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:21pm.
Now I have to stay up all night.
;)
Pleasant dreams
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:24pm.
Good night, sleep tight, and don't let the bedbugs bite!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra one more Point
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:23pm.
I have one more question Cobra: you have a line written at the end of each post that states:
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court"
If man is no different than animal, than why is the life of an unborn baby so important to you? Certainly, don’t insects kill their young?
The don't abort them
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:28pm.
NO animal, plant, or insect in the entire planet aborts their own children! That's a purely HUMAN behavior! I guess that's just another example of how Man is superior to all other forms of life, correct?
Oh, and by the way, ever hear of cannibalism?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra, Forgive me I don't understand
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:32pm.
So it is all right to kill babies as soon as they are born and eat them head first? Is that what I take from the above statement?
Yuk yuk
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:47pm.
You resemble that remarks for sure.
Of course you don't understand.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:51pm.
Of course you don't understand, because you don't even recognize the irony of that signature statement. To you it is proof of mankind's supposed superiority when , in fact, it highlights just how inferior we really are, despite our false believes of superiority.
Even after thousands of years of philosophical debate, even after centuries of "civilized" government structures, even after the creation of laws and courts, we STILL haven't figured out that killing your own children is a bad idea. We STILL act like like wild animals and kill our own kind when they become too much of a "burden."
After all this time, after all our supposed "enlightenment," after all our supposed 'reasoning," we're STILL no better than the male Grisly Bear who tramples his own children, just because they are in the way. Still believe in the superiority of the Human species?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
On abortion and Grizzly Bears
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:14pm.
I abhor abortion, it is basically child sacrifice to the alter of money. But nevertheless, when a woman does decide to kill a child, she has feelings of guilt, regret, and depression. A grizzly does not have those emotions. He just continues on his way eating salmon out of a river bank until Sarah Palin comes around and decides to make a throw rug out of him. But you still never really answered my question, if all species are equal in your eyes, then what is the point in fighting against the forces of death? I really want to know.
Ya blew it
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:21pm.
You just blew yourself out of that river bank by mentioning Sarah Palin in such a way that was WHOLLY unrelated.
Nice going. Say bye-bye to credibility if you had any!
-Jon
Jon Boy...
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:34pm.
For some strange reason I always conjure up an image of Sarah Palin whenever anyone mentions a grizzly bear.
Good,
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:57pm.
Glad to hear it
Cluebat: male grizzlies do not give birth.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:27pm.
The "he" you cited who continues eating salmon often kills the cubs in an effort to mate again.
Yeah and what is your point
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:46pm.
Why aren't you quite the little scientist.... Not really.
You're STILL missing the point.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:36pm.
You're STILL missing the point. Even with our "feelings of guilt," even with our ability to "reasoning,' even with our ability to communicate both that guilt and that "reasoning" though words, both written and spoken, and the use of symbols, like art forms and photographs, WE KEEP DOING IT, just like the grisly bear who has NONE of that.
Despite our supposed superiority, we keep acting the same as the wild animals we observe in nature despite being told, and believing, that, somehow, our ability to observe those animals and "study' their behavior makes us superior to them. HOW is that an indication of our superiority? To me, that is just an indication of our arrogance, and that is not something I would define as a superior quality.
"But you still never really answered my question, if all species are equal in your eyes, then what is the point in fighting against the forces of death? I really want to know."
I don't believe in the "forces of death," so I don't try to "fight" them. I believe that life and death are symbiotic. For it is death itself, the very concept of death, that gives arise to the concept of life. You can no more "fight" the "forces" of death than you can "fight" the "forces" of life.
What I do fight is the idea that you, or anyone else for that matter, can impose YOUR will over someone who doesn't want that control. Try to impose your will, your dominance, on those who don't want it, and I will fight you to death, if necessary, just like the wolf who fights the newcomer who's trying to become the "dominant" male of the pack even though I'M not that dominant male who's being challenged. Do you understand?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra Commander
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:44pm.
I understand the first half of the statement. People act savagely, but for each savage there is a Frank Lloyd Wright or an Alexander Graham Bell. Wild beast are wild beast, they can be no more or no less. They have no human potential.
The second half of the statement I am completely lost. I do not care what you do or want to impose anything on you by force or coercion. And the whole “symbiotic thing” sounds like some strange science cult evangelization. Oh well, I suppose I may never know why a humanist is against abortion.
That's right, you'll, never understand.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:04pm.
That's right, you'll never understand, because, and here is where you're making your biggest mistake, you are trying to place me into some type of neat, easy to understand category, just like you do with every other life form on the planet. Hence your labeling of me as a "Humanist." Hence your labeling members of the military as "school boys." Hence your labeling of all other form of life besides human as "beasts." Those are all nice, neat little categories, aren't they?
Well, here's a big surprise for you: those categories are nothing more than abstractions. They are a fictitious "intellectual" constructs, a ghost of the mind, so to speak. They bear no more resemblance to reality than the claims of human superiority, another fictitious intellectual construct.
You, for some reason, need to categorize everything and everyone, possibly so that you, in your own mind at least, can impose YOUR ideas of order onto reality. Well, I'm not going to fit so neatly into those categories you create, not will anyone or anything else. Reality is far too complex to categorize, "human superiority" notwithstanding.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:26pm.
By the way, speaking of Frank Lloyd Wright and Alexander Graham Bell, I guess you never heard of the Bowery Birds who build and decorate beautiful displays out of the materials that they find in their environment, kind of like what an architect does. Nor have you heard about the monkeys that, SURPRISE, have invented TOOLS in which to help them gather food, kind of like a Simian Graham Bell, if you will pardon the expression. There's even an Elephant who paints! Those paintings have been sold at "human" auctions!
Elephants who paint. Bird who are architects. And monkeys that invent tools. Never mind cats like my own, that figured out how to open doors just by watching humans do it! Tell me, how does THAT fit into your "Wild beast are wild beast, they can be no more or no less" worldview?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
It tells me somewhere there
Submitted by Henry Clay on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:36pm.
It tells me somewhere there is an idiot walking around who wasted his money on a painting by an elephant.
Well when your used to looking at
Submitted by Boudin on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:46pm.
Pi$$ in a bottle, Elephant painting might be a little boring?
Yet that painting still exists
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 11:56pm.
Yet that painting still exists, doesn't it? How can you explain that, if a wild animal can never be more than a wild animal? Do you believe that painting on canvas is a natural activity for a Elephant?
Here's what you need to understand: No one "taught" the Elephant how to use a paint brush. It just picked up a brush one day when they were repainting the habitat and started paining on it's own. Its not receiving any type of of 'reward" for that, like food or something. It WANT'S to paint. It actually ENJOYS it. How do you explain that?
And how about my cat? How can you explain that my cat figured out how to turn a doorknob all by himself, if wild animals don't have the ability to reason as you claimed? I didn't teach him how to do that, nor did anyone else in my family. He figured that out for himself, just by watching us. Do you believe that turning a doorknob, something that doesn't even exists in the "wild,' is a "natural" activity for a cat? If it isn't, and you know that it isn't, then he MUST have figured that out for himself, which indicates intelligence, the ability to observe and apply reasoning to solve problems just as humans do. That kind of blurs that neat little line between "reasoning" humans and "wild" animals that you have created, wouldn't you agree?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Heard of it?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 9:33pm.
Bobby Flay and crew showed up at Casa De Master Thespian for a throwdown, and left in disgust.
He was quoted as saying, "Yeah, I do thighs, but not like that."
Well, Henry
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:50pm.
I won't dabble in straw men; rather, I'd say that what we should NOT do is remove from the table any particular means available.
Clinton categorically exclaimed that we would not use military force on Assad. That is de facto authorization for him to use whatever means he deems necessary to remain in power.
In all likelihood, the Obama administration refuses to get tough with Syria because they still believe they can diplomatically persuade them to cut ties with Iran and help foster a two-state solution for Palestine. This is the legacy they hope to achieve; A Palestinian state and a nuclear-contained Iran resulting from nothing more than a silver tongue.
Amazing how naïve and foolhardy academics can be...
Assad is a reformer
Submitted by JPTSO3 on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:43pm.
He's reforming to kill whomever he chooses...
I heard Mark Steyn say today that Broomy the Hildabeast...
Submitted by Dave. on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:49pm.
...considers Assad a "reformer" is because he hasn't yet killed as many people as his daddy did.
That kind of cracked me up because it makes more sense than anything else about what is going on over in that sad region of the world.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Assad is a mass murderer and
Submitted by buddyc on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 4:47pm.
Assad is a mass murderer and the son of an evil mass murderer. She has sacraficed her intelligence for position and power. Kinda sad. Democrats sure made a mistake not nominating her. They would have won, regardless of who they nominated. They should have been responsbile enough to nominate someone competent.
I AM SHOCKED........
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:07pm.
I am shocked, SHOCKED that the state run media refuses to report on Mrs. Clinton's "Reformer" gaffe. Off topic, but also important.....gasoline prices have DOUBLED since Mr. Obambi took office.....the SILENCE from the state run media is DEAFENING! They must be trying to figure out a way to blame Bush. The empty suit and empty skirt mediapimps are spinning so fast they are in danger of screwing themselves into the ground. They must have gotten the daily memo that, "Journalism by omission" is the order of the day. Do they all have a picture of Goebbels on the wall for inspiration? He was an amateur compared to the propagandistic pond scum of today. Will we ever see an honest media again? I doubt it.
He is a reformer...
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 5:23pm.
al-Assad IS a reformer. He's currently reforming all of those protesters into corpses.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
WHAT I LEARNED ABOUT HENRY........
Submitted by Herbster on Thu, 03/31/2011 - 10:49pm.
By reading Henry's screeds, I have learned one thing......I know what his feet are made of.....
Rmember Henry, what Dionysius wisely said, "History is philosophy, teaching by example."